Stopping aging is not the same as banishing death. If no one ever aged or got sick, life expectancy would still be only several centuries. Almost no one would live past 1000. (Think restaurant glasses. They don't get sick or die, but they nearly never make it more than a few decades.) Society could adjust to that. My question is whether the human psyche could. Passing any given seven months in a row does not take much effort, usually; but try passing seven months in a vessel traveling to Mars -- not so easy.
Not being a scientist, I can't comment on the feasibility of defeating the ageing process. But I have my doubts that beyond a very finite point it would be a good idea.
It may well be that physical ageing can be halted or even reversed. But mental ageing cannot. If I woke up tomorrow morning in a decades-younger body, I'd still be saddled with the 73 years I've lived so far. And from what I've seen in my time, the wisdom of age is mainly a fiction; far closer to reality is that good old American proverb stating that there's no fool like an old fool. The ageing process is not solely a physiological phenomenon.
If the human lifespan were to be tripled or quintupled, the effects on human society would be nothing short of explosive. That is fairly obvious. Less obvious, but worthy of the deepest consideration, are the possible effects on the individual human being. I find myself asking: Would a being aged 250, with another 250 years of life ahead of him, be recognizably human? Would his mentality have anything in common with our own? It may well be that the whole of human thought and culture to date would seem irrelevant to him. After all, what could "King Lear" or "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" mean to such a being?
There's food for thought in this, no doubt about it.
Very interesting. I'm a young man, so death is more academic to me than a real possibility, but my grandfather (mid-80s) once put it succinctly: "Getting old sucks, man".
Like a lot of innovations in technology, I think we should ask ourselves: should we? However, I think there should be a version of Murphy's Law that states - What people can do, they will do, and do it in excess. If it is possible to make ourselves immortal, then it will be done.
This article's premise seems to believe that suffering and death are the greatest evils inflicting the world: "Aging is the biggest cause of human pain, suffering, and death on the planet". Certainly true in part, but I think I've seen more suffering through regret. By that I mean I've seen joyous old people, perfectly content poor people, and even people with serious disabilities living happily or at least bearing their suffering in a noble manner.
The biggest source of suffering I've seen (besides and beyond physical suffering) has been people who have wasted their lives, regret the decisions they've made, and dislike the person who they have let themselves become. In other words, it's people who can't look themselves in the eye who greatly contribute to the world's suffering, much more than the ailing and suffering, yet happy, old, dying man.
Of course, that's just my own perception thus far. I may change my mind once I get arthritis.
While I think this is a very interesting article, there is one bone I have to pick with it:
"[I]f people in positions of power were to live longer, they would perhaps develop longer planning horizons, leading to decisions that prioritize the long-term well-being of society."
In my mind's eye, I see an immortal Hitler or Stalin working towards their vision of well-being for society. Thankfully, I have a poor visual imagination.
The one proven method for increasing longevity in many species is fasting. Whether it would work in humans as well as it works in less advanced species is an open question. The sparse evidence from non-human primates is mixed. It’s also unclear whether fasting would need to be a life long ritual or whether it could be started later in life and still be effective.
Anyone who wants to learn about this topic should read some of the work of Valter Longo, a professor at USC. Reading scientific journal articles can seem daunting if you’re not familiar with the arcane nomenclature, but if you make the effort to plow through it, you will find that you understand more than you think. My suggestion is to start by reading the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections and skip the sections on methodology and results which often rely on statistical analyses that layman may be unfamiliar with.
Here’s the Valter Longo Google Scholar page. Take a look at some of the links.
There’s also great interest in using a class of drugs called rapalogs to promote longevity. The most famous of these drugs is rapamycin which is commonly used to prevent the rejection of transplanted organs. These drugs work their magic by inhibiting a substance known as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) which is implicated in aging, inflammation and some cancers. There’s reasonably good evidence that the administration of rapamycin and its sister drugs can profoundly improve longevity, at least in some species. See,
Stopping aging is not the same as banishing death. If no one ever aged or got sick, life expectancy would still be only several centuries. Almost no one would live past 1000. (Think restaurant glasses. They don't get sick or die, but they nearly never make it more than a few decades.) Society could adjust to that. My question is whether the human psyche could. Passing any given seven months in a row does not take much effort, usually; but try passing seven months in a vessel traveling to Mars -- not so easy.
Not being a scientist, I can't comment on the feasibility of defeating the ageing process. But I have my doubts that beyond a very finite point it would be a good idea.
It may well be that physical ageing can be halted or even reversed. But mental ageing cannot. If I woke up tomorrow morning in a decades-younger body, I'd still be saddled with the 73 years I've lived so far. And from what I've seen in my time, the wisdom of age is mainly a fiction; far closer to reality is that good old American proverb stating that there's no fool like an old fool. The ageing process is not solely a physiological phenomenon.
If the human lifespan were to be tripled or quintupled, the effects on human society would be nothing short of explosive. That is fairly obvious. Less obvious, but worthy of the deepest consideration, are the possible effects on the individual human being. I find myself asking: Would a being aged 250, with another 250 years of life ahead of him, be recognizably human? Would his mentality have anything in common with our own? It may well be that the whole of human thought and culture to date would seem irrelevant to him. After all, what could "King Lear" or "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" mean to such a being?
There's food for thought in this, no doubt about it.
Very interesting. I'm a young man, so death is more academic to me than a real possibility, but my grandfather (mid-80s) once put it succinctly: "Getting old sucks, man".
Like a lot of innovations in technology, I think we should ask ourselves: should we? However, I think there should be a version of Murphy's Law that states - What people can do, they will do, and do it in excess. If it is possible to make ourselves immortal, then it will be done.
This article's premise seems to believe that suffering and death are the greatest evils inflicting the world: "Aging is the biggest cause of human pain, suffering, and death on the planet". Certainly true in part, but I think I've seen more suffering through regret. By that I mean I've seen joyous old people, perfectly content poor people, and even people with serious disabilities living happily or at least bearing their suffering in a noble manner.
The biggest source of suffering I've seen (besides and beyond physical suffering) has been people who have wasted their lives, regret the decisions they've made, and dislike the person who they have let themselves become. In other words, it's people who can't look themselves in the eye who greatly contribute to the world's suffering, much more than the ailing and suffering, yet happy, old, dying man.
Of course, that's just my own perception thus far. I may change my mind once I get arthritis.
While I think this is a very interesting article, there is one bone I have to pick with it:
"[I]f people in positions of power were to live longer, they would perhaps develop longer planning horizons, leading to decisions that prioritize the long-term well-being of society."
In my mind's eye, I see an immortal Hitler or Stalin working towards their vision of well-being for society. Thankfully, I have a poor visual imagination.
Bravo! What a great essay!
The one proven method for increasing longevity in many species is fasting. Whether it would work in humans as well as it works in less advanced species is an open question. The sparse evidence from non-human primates is mixed. It’s also unclear whether fasting would need to be a life long ritual or whether it could be started later in life and still be effective.
Anyone who wants to learn about this topic should read some of the work of Valter Longo, a professor at USC. Reading scientific journal articles can seem daunting if you’re not familiar with the arcane nomenclature, but if you make the effort to plow through it, you will find that you understand more than you think. My suggestion is to start by reading the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections and skip the sections on methodology and results which often rely on statistical analyses that layman may be unfamiliar with.
Here’s the Valter Longo Google Scholar page. Take a look at some of the links.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5qAeNNEAAAAJ&hl=en
There’s also great interest in using a class of drugs called rapalogs to promote longevity. The most famous of these drugs is rapamycin which is commonly used to prevent the rejection of transplanted organs. These drugs work their magic by inhibiting a substance known as the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) which is implicated in aging, inflammation and some cancers. There’s reasonably good evidence that the administration of rapamycin and its sister drugs can profoundly improve longevity, at least in some species. See,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6814615/
"...maximal lifespans have largely stayed put."
Well, maybe. After all, a significant fraction of the human species that has ever been born is still alive.
Life insurers seem to agree. They make a ton of money betting that I won't die tomorrow.
Maybe death isn't inevitable, we just haven't found the key, yet.
Eric Hines
A fascinating topic and a good read.